Ask Slashdot: Is Reverse DNS a Worthy Standard For Fighting Spam?

drmartin66 makes it to the front page with this question: "Last weekend I installed a new spam filter server for a client, and enabled connection rejection if the sending server did not have a Reverse DNS record. Since then, I have had a number of emails rejected from regulator bodies that do not have a Reverse DNS record, and are refusing to have one created for their email server. What is your opinion of Reverse DNS records? Are they (or should they be) a standard, and required? Or are they useless for spam fighting?"

Comments

rDNS

[alphatel]

Like all things spam, marking the message as bad automatically is generally discouraged. If you simply increase the SCL value by some reasonable number, and continue to raise SCL based on other soft violations (like spamhaus, surbl, etc), you will rarely put good senders in the junk email folder, and very frequently be able to reject most spam content.

Better Question...

[RedACE7500]

What reason would anyone have to be running an SMTP server without a PTR record?

Re:Better Question...

[Anon-Admin]

I hate to say it but you have way too high of an expectation of ISP's

I have a static address on a business account via a major ISP. I have a Domain name and have DNS. My DNS resolves to www.mycompany.com but the ISP has the PTR set to 111.222.333.444.static.ISPDOMAIN.COM

They will not change it no matter what I ask and E-mail from my domain through my e-mail server is rejected because the PTR does not match the A record. It has gotten so bad that I had to pay for a mail relay host to push my mail through. To me, this is a risk because they (The relay) could intercept, monitor, or filter the private e-mail between me and my customers which would directly effect my business.

So, personally I say it is a bad idea!

Re:Depends on how badly you want mail....

[Just Some Guy]

It's been a long time since I wrote up some spam-filtering instructions, but I'd still stand by most of my recommendations. In general, yes: just increase the spam score. I do have several litmus tests, though. If you fail one of these, I'm not accepting your mail:

• Your HELO has to send something that actually looks like a hostname. "server" doesn't work, and neither does "5626^^^". Rationale: a server this badly misconfigured is either a spambot or so horribly broken that I don't want to talk to it. I look at the output of this rule from my logs and I've literally never seen anything blocked that looked like it might have been legitimate.
• Don't send me my own hostname in the HELO. You're lying. The only reason to do this is to trick me into relaying for you.
• Don't send mail From: an unresolvable address. "someone@server" isn't a legitimate email address. Neither is "joe@nonexistent.example.com". If it would be impossible to send you a reply because the address you've given can't possibly be valid, I don't need to hear from you.
• I use zen.spamhaus.org, bl.spamcop.net, and b.barracudacentral.org to generate a likely spam score for incoming servers. If their combined score exceeds a certain threshold, I outright block email from that server. A server might accidentally end up on a blacklist, but it's unlikely that one would accidentally end up on more than one of those (in my opinion and experience) very conservative lists.

"Be liberal with what you accept" is a great idea to a point, but there are some things that correlate very strongly with spamminess. Back to the subject at hand: I don't think that lack of reverse DNS is one of those things.